DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on 7/7/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1-7 are amended.
5. Claims 8-13 are new.
Response to Arguments
Response: Double Patenting
6. Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/7/26, with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection of claim 1-7 has been withdrawn.
Response: Claim Interpretation
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to claims 1-7 would overcome the claim interpretation of claims 1-7 (Remarks: page 7)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the applicant made amendments to claim 1, 6 and 7 to overcome the claim interpretation. In the second limitation of claim 7, the limitation of “a step of selecting” was not removed. Therefore, the claim interpretation for this limitation of claim 7 is being maintained.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 112
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to claims would overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. (Remarks: page 7)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the applicant made amendments to claim 1, 6 and 7 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection. However, in the second limitation of claim 7, the limitation of “a step of selecting” was not removed. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of this limitation of claim 7 is being maintained.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the performing limitation of independent claims that states “perform model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” cannot be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 8)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation shown in section 11 of the current office action was rejected under Step 2A Prong 2, not Step 2A Prong 1. The examiner notes that the limitation of “perform model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
13. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the selecting and generating limitations of the independent claims cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The limitations state “select one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking” and “generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. The applicant points to the McRo court case for support as to why the selecting and generating limitations cannot be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: pages 9-10)
14. Examiner Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the limitation of select one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking” doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation of “generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the examiner notes that in the McRO case, the court used a claim construction analysis, interpreting the claimed "first set of rules" as being limited to rules that evaluate sub-sequences consisting of multiple sequential phonemes. Under this interpretation, the court found while the claims may not recite a particular species of rules to be applied, they are still limited to a particular genus of rules (i.e., those that evaluate sequences of multiple phonemes) and therefore do not preempt all rules-based techniques for solving the problem at hand. The applicant argues that the current claim language. The examiner notes that the claims of the current application do not recite an unconventional way of determining whether there’s an unsafe event.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 103
15. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that a prima facie case of obviousness was not established in the
previous office action regarding the prior art of record. The applicant also argues that the prior
art of record doesn’t teach the limitation of claim 1 that states “in a case where another
counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion
frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information” (Remarks:
pages 12-13)
16. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation of claim 1 that states “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information” is taught by the Bjesse reference. The Bjesse reference teaches repeating the process of model checking when an error is read. An abstract pair is selected to resolve the error that is read and the iteration returns to the model checking step to repeat the process until the network is updated, see Bjesse (Pg. 3, 1st paragraph, “For example, an abstraction pair can be identified by performing a model check process on top of an updated network connection table starting with an initial updated network connection table that does not have an abstract pair of implementations. If the model check fails in a particular state, the trace that caused the failure is retrieved, and then a simulation is performed using the raw input network connection table based on the set of input and initial state variable assignments determined by the particular state trace. If the simulation of the original network connection table does not indicate a failure, the updated network connection table is processed to find the erroneous read that caused the failure. Select the abstraction pair to resolve the error read, and add the selected abstraction pair to the updated network connection table, the iteration returns to the model checking step' and repeat the processing until the updated network connection table passes the model check 'Until the real defect is detected in the simulation step, or until the updated network connection table becomes larger than the target size.”);
Also, the Takao et al. and Bjesse are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the occurrence of a failure event.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takao et al. of having a verification device to verify the occurrence of a failure using model checking by incorporating in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information as taught by Bjesse for the purpose of verifying and analyzing complex designs including.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Bjesse teaches that by verifying and analyzing complex designs including memory using a model check process, the ability to check designs with wide data paths and large memory can be accomplished. This allows the ability to analyze integrated circuit designs (Bjesse Pg. 1, Description, 1st paragraph, “The present invention relates to integrated circuit design, etc.”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,”
but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a step of selecting”, in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation of claim 7 “a step of selecting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Also, claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend on claim 7. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because he claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 6-7
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 6-7 are directed towards a device, a method and medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 6 recites “selecting one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “generating exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “increasing, in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updating the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “selecting an element of which the exclusion frequency is high is selected based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6 recites “determining a main cause of the counterexample”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim language of claim 6 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed. Accordingly, the additional element of a processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim language of claim 6 does not recite a computer or components of a computer such as a processor, where an additional element is not claimed.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “select one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “select an element of which the exclusion frequency is high based on the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “determine a main cause of the counterexample”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “perform model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “perform model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor and memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “perform model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “perform model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and memory amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 7
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 7 recites “a step of selecting one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “generating exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “increasing, in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, the exclusion frequency of the selected element and updating the exclusion history information”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “selecting an element of which the exclusion frequency is high is selected based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “determining a main cause of the counterexample”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a computer and a medium. The computer and a medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “performing model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the model checking is occurring, what the elements are or how they’re associated with the model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “performing model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the re-checking is occurring or how the selected element is excluded. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the computer and a medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “generate, based on the exclusion frequency for each element included in one design drawing, exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in design drawing units”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate what the element included in the one design drawing is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recites “selects all elements included in a design drawing of which the exclusion frequency in the design drawing units is high based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how it’s determined that the exclusion frequency of the elements is high. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units for each of the plurality of elements” This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information is being generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites “selects an element of which the exclusion frequency in the checking expression units corresponding to a checking expression used in the next model checking is high based on the exclusion history information.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information was determined to have the exclusion frequency of an element being high. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “in a case where a counterexample is not output as a result of the model re- checking, one of two groups into which a plurality of previously selected elements is divided.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation dividing previously selected elements, see paragraphs [0055] – [0056] of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “a threshold value used for determining whether or not to exclude each element from the model to be checked by comparing the threshold value with the exclusion frequency.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the model to be checked represents an operation logic of a system using logical expressions in which elements of the system are variables”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation has an operation logic of a system that can use logical expressions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 8 recites “and the model checking comprehensively checks all possible states of the model to be checked using the logical expressions to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event.”. This limitation is using logical expressions of the operation logic to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 9, 11 and 13
Dependent claims 9, 11 and 13 recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to narrow down the main cause of the counterexample by performing, in order: a first exclusion process that excludes elements in design drawing units based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in the design drawing units”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information is generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 9, 11 and 13 recite “a second exclusion process that excludes elements based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information is generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 9, 11 and 13 recite “and a third exclusion process that excludes individual elements based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each individual element.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the exclusion history information is generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 12
Dependent claims 10 and 12 recite “wherein the model to be checked represents an operation logic of a system using logical expressions in which elements of the system are variables”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, this limitation has an operation logic of a system that can use logical expressions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 10 and 12 recite “and the model checking comprehensively checks all possible states of the model to be checked using the logical expressions to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event.”. This limitation is using logical expressions of the operation logic to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-13 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao
et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0387656) (from IDS dated 1/11/23) in view of Bjesse (TW 201022978).
With respect to claim 1, Takao et al. discloses “A verification processing device” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0044] “The verification-processing device in the following embodiments inspects an event when an unsafe event occurs, using a predetermined inspection expression.”)];
“at least one memory configured to store instructions” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0259] “Note that FIG. 1 and FIG. 6 described above are schematic block diagrams showing the configuration of a computer according to at least one embodiment. The computer includes a processor, a main memory, a storage, and an interface, which are not shown.”)];
“and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0259] “Note that FIG. 1 and FIG. 6 described above are schematic block diagrams showing the configuration of a computer according to at least one embodiment. The computer includes a processor, a main memory, a storage, and an interface, which are not shown.”)];
“perform model checking on a model to be checked including a plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph[0024] “According to an eighth aspect of the present invention, a logic-generating device includes a logic generation unit that is configured to generate a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression based on data on a list showing a mutual connection relationship between the element and the connection line, the evaluation expression being represented by a logical expression taking, as variables, as a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit of a verification target, the evaluation expression including at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0132] “The logic generation unit 27 generates the circuit logic model represented by the evaluation expression, based on the data of the list showing the connection relationship between the elements and the connection lines. As described above, the above evaluation expression is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit to be verified, and includes at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, The examiner considers the evaluation expression to be the model checking, since the evaluation expression determines if there’s a failure element)];
“select one or more of a plurality of elements included in a counterexample output as a result of the model checking” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0048] “The evaluation expression DB 11 includes data regarding the evaluation expression for the relay logic circuit to be evaluated. The evaluation expression is formed as a logical expression in which the relay, the element, and the connection line forming the relay logic circuit to be verified are variables. This evaluation expression includes at least a logical expression when a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”, The examiner notes that by there being a failure event, demonstrates that there’s a counterexample, since a counterexample demonstrates why a systems property fails to hold.)];
“generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each of a plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1. The analysis data setting unit 21 stores the verification condition corresponding to the selection result in the evaluation condition DB 12.”)];
“perform model re-checking on the model to be checked obtained by excluding the selected element” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0063] “As a method of comprehensively defining the items, there is a method of automatically generating variables such that the values of the variables in the evaluation expression used for the analysis process become a combination of variables different from one another for each inspection item. By comprehensively defining inspection items by the above method, it is possible to verify that no unsafe event occurs in the output of the relay in the relay logic circuit for any event that occurs regardless of the state.”, The examiner considers verifying that no unsafe event occurs to be excluding the selected element in model re-checking, since the model checking that included the selected element gave results of a failure event)];
“select an element of which the exclusion frequency is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
“determine a main cause of the counterexample” as [Takao et al. (paragraph 0048] “The evaluation expression DB 11 includes data regarding the evaluation expression for the relay logic circuit to be evaluated. The evaluation expression is formed as a logical expression in which the relay, the element, and the connection line forming the relay logic circuit to be verified are variables. This evaluation expression includes at least a logical expression when a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, The examiner considers the logical expression when a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit to be the determination of a main cause of the counterexample, since the logical expression is in response to the failure in the relay logic circuit)];
While the Takao et al. reference teaches having a verification device to verify the occurrence of a failure using model checking, Takao et al. does not explicitly disclose “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information”
Bjesse discloses “in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information” as [Bjesse (Pg. 3, 1st paragraph, “For example, an abstraction pair can be identified by performing a model check process on top of an updated network connection table starting with an initial updated network connection table that does not have an abstract pair of implementations. If the model check fails in a particular state, the trace that caused the failure is retrieved, and then a simulation is performed using the raw input network connection table based on the set of input and initial state variable assignments determined by the particular state trace. If the simulation of the original network connection table does not indicate a failure, the updated network connection table is processed to find the erroneous read that caused the failure. Select the abstraction pair to resolve the error read, and add the selected abstraction pair to the updated network connection table, the iteration returns to the model checking step' and repeat the processing until the updated network connection table passes the model check 'Until the real defect is detected in the simulation step, or until the updated network connection table becomes larger than the target size.”)];
Takao et al. and Bjesse are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the occurrence of a failure event.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Takao et al. of having a verification device to verify the occurrence of a failure using model checking by incorporating in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information as taught by Bjesse for the purpose of verifying and analyzing complex designs including.
Takao et al. in view of Bjesse teaches in a case where another counterexample is output as a result of the model re-checking, increase the exclusion frequency of the selected element and update the exclusion history information.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Bjesse teaches that by verifying and analyzing complex designs including memory using a model check process, the ability to check designs with wide data paths and large memory can be accomplished. This allows the ability to analyze integrated circuit designs (Bjesse Pg. 1, Description, 1st paragraph, “The present invention relates to integrated circuit design, etc.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “generate, based on the exclusion frequency for each element included in one design drawing, exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in design drawing units” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“and select all elements included in a design drawing of which the exclusion frequency in the design drawing units is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “generate exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units for each of the plurality of elements” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“and select an element of which the exclusion frequency in the checking expression units corresponding to a checking expression used in the next model checking is high based on the exclusion history information.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0136] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects a specific type from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes, and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “in a case where a counterexample is not output as a result of the model re- checking” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0063] “As a method of comprehensively defining the items, there is a method of automatically generating variables such that the values of the variables in the evaluation expression used for the analysis process become a combination of variables different from one another for each inspection item. By comprehensively defining inspection items by the above method, it is possible to verify that no unsafe event occurs in the output of the relay in the relay logic circuit for any event that occurs regardless of the state.”)];
“one of two groups into which a plurality of previously selected elements is divided.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “a threshold value used for determining whether or not to exclude each element from the model to be checked by comparing the threshold value with the exclusion frequency.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1.”)];
With respect to claim 6, Takao et al. discloses “A verification processing method” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0026] “According to a ninth aspect of the present invention, a verification-processing method includes a step of acquiring a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression in which a relay logic circuit of a verification target is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form the relay logic circuit, etc.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 7, Takao et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0259] “Note that FIG. 1 and FIG. 6 described above are schematic block diagrams showing the configuration of a computer according to at least one embodiment. The computer includes a processor, a main memory, a storage, and an interface, which are not shown.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0261] “Examples of the storage include a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), a magnetic disk, a magneto-optical disk, a compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM), a digital versatile disc read only memory (DVD-ROM), and a semiconductor memory. The storage may be an internal medium directly connected to the bus of the computer, or may be an external medium connected to the computer through the interface or a communication line.”, Figs. 1 and 6)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein the model to be checked represents an operation logic of a system using logical expressions in which elements of the system are variables, and the model checking comprehensively checks all possible states of the model to be checked using the logical expressions to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0024] “According to an eighth aspect of the present invention, a logic-generating device includes a logic generation unit that is configured to generate a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression based on data on a list showing a mutual connection relationship between the element and the connection line, the evaluation expression being represented by a logical expression taking, as variables, as a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit of a verification target, the evaluation expression including at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0132] “The logic generation unit 27 generates the circuit logic model represented by the evaluation expression, based on the data of the list showing the connection relationship between the elements and the connection lines. As described above, the above evaluation expression is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit to be verified, and includes at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, The examiner considers the evaluation expression to be the model checking, since the evaluation expression determines if there’s a failure element)];
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 1 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to narrow down the main cause of the counterexample by performing, in order: a first exclusion process that excludes elements in design drawing units based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in the design drawing units” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“a second exclusion process that excludes elements based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency in checking expression units” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0135] “In response to this, the analysis data setting unit 21 registers the data, which is generated by the user, indicating the connection relationship of each element in the element information DB 15. For example, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires the configuration information of the relay logic circuit for the verification process from the external device or the like by a user operation or by communication. For example, the configuration information includes an element extracted from the relay logic circuit and data indicating the connection relationship of the element in the element list. In this case, the analysis data setting unit 21A acquires data regarding the element list and adds the acquired element list to the element information DB 15.”)];
“and a third exclusion process that excludes individual elements based on exclusion history information indicating an exclusion frequency for each individual element.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0066] “Next, the analysis data setting unit 21 sequentially selects, from a plurality of types of failure events, the types of failure events subjected to inspection (failure events to be inspected) according to a predetermined rule (step S12). For example, the display control unit 26 causes the display unit (not shown) to display a plurality of types of analysis processes that are associated with the types of failure events subjected to inspection. The user selects one or a plurality of types from the displayed plurality of types of analysis processes and registers the selection result in the verification-processing device 1. The analysis data setting unit 21 stores the verification condition corresponding to the selection result in the evaluation condition DB 12.”)];
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Takao et al. and Bjesse discloses the device of claim 6 above, and Takao et al. further discloses “wherein the model to be checked represents an operation logic of a system using logical expressions in which elements of the system are variables, and the model checking comprehensively checks all possible states of the model to be checked using the logical expressions to identify a condition leading to an unsafe event.” as [Takao et al. (paragraph [0024] “According to an eighth aspect of the present invention, a logic-generating device includes a logic generation unit that is configured to generate a circuit logic model represented by an evaluation expression based on data on a list showing a mutual connection relationship between the element and the connection line, the evaluation expression being represented by a logical expression taking, as variables, as a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit of a verification target, the evaluation expression including at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, Takao et al. paragraph [0132] “The logic generation unit 27 generates the circuit logic model represented by the evaluation expression, based on the data of the list showing the connection relationship between the elements and the connection lines. As described above, the above evaluation expression is represented by a logical expression taking as variables, a relay, an element, and a connection line that form a relay logic circuit to be verified, and includes at least the logical expression for a case where a failure event occurs in the relay logic circuit.”, The examiner considers the evaluation expression to be the model checking, since the evaluation expression determines if there’s a failure element)];
With respect to claim 11, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 9 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 10 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 9 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Kaufmann et al. (U.S. Patent 5,999,717) is performing model checking of an integrated circuit design that avoids the need for construction of an environment model by the use of constraints.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights